Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7928846" data-attributes="member: 15700">Again, as someone who proclaims themselves with an "educational background in linguistics ", it strikes me really odd that you're arguing that unless there are those added sections that you put in, something cannot be accepted as true as a definition.  Now I"m really curious as to what your educational background in linguistics is, because this is twice now you're arguing the absurd.  It's not only beyond hyperbolic, but it's factually wrong.  Definitions are not presented that way either.For example, jumping:1. push oneself off a surface and into the air by using the muscles in one's legs and feet. Your arguing that unless it says "push only oneself off a surface and into the air by only using the muscles in one's legs and feet, so help you god. ", then it's not really an accepted definition of jumping.  Come on now.Also, I never threw other testers under the bus.  I'm pointing out games that had really poor quality testing done.  That's a fact.  It doesn't mean they didn't do any testing.  It doesn't mean the team were bad people.  It means the testing was inadequate.  At the very base of what QA testing is, testing signoff can not be done if there are high severity defects open.  That's true regardless of methodology or if you're using waterfall, Agile, etc.  And it's not because I'm refusing to accept other industries have different standards.  There's one standard.  I've provided numerous links as to what that standard is.  So far, you've provided ZERO links that shows the definitions are different.  Sure, they are using different standards.  But the are not using the industry standard, which is the point. So if you want to continue, please cite evidence supporting your position without resorting to absurd hyperbole or veiled attacks on my character.</blockquote>

Verification